Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Jun 2017 20:31 UTC, submitted by dionicio

You'd expect with Microsoft adding x86 emulation to its upcoming ARM-based windows 10 PCs all the possible licensing issues would be sorted. As ubiquitous as x86 is, it's easy to forget it's still a patent minefield guarded by Intel. And surprise, surprise, with the chipmaker under pressure from AMD and ARM, it felt the need to make that very, very clear. Dangling at the end of a celebratory PR blog post about 40 years of x86, Intel writes:

However, there have been reports that some companies may try to emulate Intel's proprietary x86 ISA without Intel's authorization. Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation ("code morphing") techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta's x86 implementation even though it used emulation. In any event, Transmeta was not commercially successful, and it exited the microprocessor business 10 years ago.

Only time will tell if new attempts to emulate Intel's x86 ISA will meet a different fate. Intel welcomes lawful competition, and we are confident that Intel's microprocessors, which have been specifically optimized to implement Intel's x86 ISA for almost four decades, will deliver amazing experiences, consistency across applications, and a full breadth of consumer offerings, full manageability and IT integration for the enterprise. However, we do not welcome unlawful infringement of our patents, and we fully expect other companies to continue to respect Intel's intellectual property rights. Strong intellectual property protections make it possible for Intel to continue to invest the enormous resources required to advance Intel's dynamic x86 ISA, and Intel will maintain its vigilance to protect its innovations and investments.

I'm assuming Microsoft has all this stuff licensed nice and proper, but it's interesting that Intel felt the need to emphasize this as strongly as they do here. Which companies is Intel referring to here? Maybe Apple?

Permalink for comment 645485
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: What about VirtualBox, then?
by galvanash on Mon 12th Jun 2017 22:09 UTC in reply to "What about VirtualBox, then?"
Member since:

Virtualbox is not an emulator... It is virtualization.

x86 Emulators (like Bochs) actually emulate the entire processor, as such they have to actually implement instruction decoding, execution, and what not (things the patents that Intel holds apply to). Bochs would technically need a license, but there is no money behind it so Intel seemingly doesn't bother to threaten them.

Virtualization does not do that. When you run stuff on Virtualbox your just running native x86 code directly on the underlying processor. Virtualbox emulates I/O devices, or more accurately proxies access to them so that the virtualized environment thinks it has its own dedicated I/O devices. It more or less acts as a traffic cop, marshaling access to the devices that need to be proxied. There is very little "emulation" involved with it (other than the device drivers themselves).

Intel doesn't require patent licenses for such software - they actually encourage use of virtualization - because you need an x86 processor to run it on...

Edited 2017-06-12 22:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5